Dialing up desire and dampening disinterest: regulating sexual desire in the bedroom and sexual and relationship well-being

Romantic partners often regulate their emotions and affection to achieve certain goals, but research has yet to explore how partners regulate their expression of sexual desire during sex and its implications for couples’ well-being. In two multi-part dyadic diary studies of primarily mixed-gender couples in longer-term relationships residing in North America, we examined three questions. First, is amplifying desire and suppressing disinterest during sex associated with both partners’ daily sexual and relationship satisfaction? Second, do these associations differ by level of sexual desire and gender? Third, tested in our second sample, can these associations be explained by feelings of sexual inauthenticity? Across both samples (Ntotal = 225 couples, 450 participants), amplifying desire was associated with lower sexual satisfaction, while suppressing disinterest was not associated with daily satisfaction. Importantly, sexual desire played a role in the links between desire regulation during sex and satisfaction: on days when people were low in sexual desire, amplification was associated with both partners’ lower sexual satisfaction, while suppression was associated with a partner’s higher relationship satisfaction. In addition, amplification (on low desire days) and suppression (regardless of desire level) were associated with lower sexual authenticity which, in turn, was linked to lower relationship satisfaction. The findings suggest that desire regulation during sex plays an important role in couples’ daily sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction—in part because it feels sexually inauthentic—with the implications of this regulation being particularly strong when people feel low sexual desire.

68.6% Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to a small amount of missing data.

SD=1.82).
Each day, participants were also asked "Did you and your partner have sex today?
(yes/no)." In Sample 1, participants reported engaging in sex with their partner on a total of 830 days (18%; Range=0 to 17 days; M=3.47; SD=3.00), and 107 couples from this sample were included in our analyses because fifteen couples did not have sex during the diary. In Sample 2, participants reported engaging in sex with their partner on a total of 1,107 days (25%; Range=0 to 17; M=4.59; SD=3.13), and 118 couples from this sample were included in our analyses because three couples did not have sex during the diary. Each day participants reported engaging in sex, amplifying sexual desire was assessed with an item adapted from Côté and Morgan (2002): "During sex, I tried to enhance or exaggerate my display of sexual desire" (1="strongly disagree" to 7="strongly agree"; Sample 1: M=2.35, SD=1.68; Sample 2: M=2.76, SD=1.92); suppressing sexual disinterest was assessed with an item adapted from Gross and John (2003): "When I felt disinterested during sex, I was careful not to express this" (1="strongly disagree" to 7="strongly agree"; Sample 1: M=2.58, SD=1.75; Sample 2: M=2.51, SD=2.01); and in Sample 2 only, sexual authenticity was assessed with one item adapted from Impett et al. (2012) to the sexual context: "I felt authentic (true to myself) during sex" (1="strongly disagree" to 7="strongly agree"; M=6.16; SD=1.15).

Sexual Authenticity: Alternative Mediation Models
Following a similar procedure employed by English and John (2013) in their study on suppression, authenticity, and social functioning, we tested two alternative mediated-moderation models for each of the original dependent variables to rule out alternative pathways.
First, we tested whether satisfaction might mediate the link between the desire regulation during sex and sexual desire interaction term and sexual authenticity (i.e., desire regulation during sex X sexual desire  satisfaction  sexual authenticity). When we tested relationship satisfaction as the mediator and sexual authenticity as the dependent variable (i.e., amplification during sex X sexual desire and suppression during sex X sexual desire  relationship satisfaction  sexual authenticity), we found that the interaction between amplification and desire predicted relationship satisfaction ( predicted relationship satisfaction, so we did not proceed with testing the full (moderated) mediation.
When we tested sexual satisfaction as the mediator and sexual authenticity as the dependent variable (i.e., amplification during sex X sexual desire and suppression during sex X sexual desire  sexual satisfaction  sexual authenticity), we found that the interaction between amplification and desire predicted sexual satisfaction ( In summary, the non-significant mediated-moderation models when sexual authenticity was tested as the dependent variable provide further support for our conceptual model with satisfaction as the core outcome variable. In addition, although we did find a significant indirect effect when we tested amplification mediating the link between sexual authenticity and relationship satisfaction, we did not find a significant indirect effect when we tested suppression as a mediator in this model. Importantly, this contrasts with our mediation model in the manuscript, in which we found evidence for the indirect effect of both amplification and suppression through sexual authenticity on relationship satisfaction. We recognize that causal claims cannot be made given our cross-sectional data, and it is possible that there are bidirectional links between our core constructs-perhaps especially between amplification and sexual authenticity. Taken together, however, we do have more confidence in our proposed mediation model in the manuscript given that we generally ruled out these alternative models.

Follow-Up Analyses (Combined Samples)
Across both samples, we also examined if the chronic use of desire regulation strategies during sex over the 21-day diary period was associated with relationship satisfaction, commitment, and thoughts of breaking up three months later (as well as sexual satisfaction only in Sample 2).

Person-Level Measures
Of the 243 couples across both samples, the vast majority (87%, n=422) completed the 1 Although Sample 1 originally had three baseline and follow-up commitment items, Sample 2 had two baseline commitment items and one follow-up commitment item from the PRQC. To run an IDA with both samples combined, only the one-item face valid measure of commitment that was consistent across both samples was used at baseline and follow-up (i.e., "How committed are you to your relationship?").

Data Analytic Approach
Similar to the analyses in our manuscript, we pooled data from our two samples together and conducted an integrative data analysis (IDA) following Curran and Hussong's (2009) and Hussong and colleagues' (2013) guidelines. We used the aggregates of participants' reports of daily sexual desire amplification and sexual disinterest suppression during sex over the course of the diary to predict relationship satisfaction, commitment, and break-up thoughts three months later (plus sexual satisfaction only in Sample 2), controlling for the same outcome at baseline.
Similar to our daily models, these analyses utilize the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006), with separate models for each dependent variable. We first ran indistinguishable models, then tested whether gender moderated the links between desire regulation strategy and the follow-up outcome. If an effect differed by gender, we ran distinguishable models and reported the effects separately for men and women. Truncated data and code from these follow-up analyses are available on the OSF (https://osf.io/w7gnv/?view_only=1e18eb4c94424e8da8644165a70c5de8).

Results
Correlations among variables across samples are shown in Table S5 (Table S6 and S7 depict correlations by sample). Consistent across both samples, people who chronically suppressed disinterest during sex reported lower relationship satisfaction and lower commitment three months later, controlling for initial levels of relationship satisfaction and commitment, respectively (    Note. DV=dependent variable. Baseline DV is commitment in the thoughts of breaking up model. g =effect was moderated by gender. m =effect was moderated by gender (marginal). Sample coded as Sample 1=1, Sample 2=-1.

Follow-Up Analyses: Summary and Discussion
Consistent across samples, we found that people who chronically suppressed disinterest during sex over the course of the diary reported lower relationship satisfaction and commitment three months later. These findings generally align with research suggesting that the habitual use of suppression is linked to higher negative emotions (Gross & John, 2003) and that deceptive affection may provide temporary fixes to relational or sexual challenges, but that lower wellbeing may manifest more strongly over time (e.g., Denes et al., 2017). In contrast, chronic desire amplification during sex was not associated with follow-up sexual and relational outcomes.
Although desire amplification during sex was linked to lower daily sexual satisfaction (for both partners) and lower daily relationship satisfaction through feelings of sexual inauthenticity on low sexual desire days, it does not appear to have longer lasting implications for partners' relationship and sex lives.